Distortion Canon 10-22 vs. Tokina 12-24

[jim c]

A month ago I returned the Canon lens because it did not appear sharp.I wanted to compare my replacement (tokina 12-24) but have only a few pics from the Canon. These samples (1-4) show distortion between the canon @ 10mm and the Tokina @ 12mm. I was originally comparing sharpness, but was surprised how much distortion you get @ 10mm or to put it another way, how little you get at 12mm.The sharpness of my Tokina is better than the Canon I had....I'm sure mine was not as sharp as others I have read about. Regarding the sharpness of the Tokina wide open, it appears to be nearly the same @f4 compared to f8. (You have to look very closely to see the differences)
:D

[jim c]

Here are 2 files @100%

[Tom W]

the type of distortion I'm seeing is generally seen when a wide-angle lens is tilted slightly upward. Get both lenses again, get straight in front of the house with a tripod, and re-take the images from the exact same spot without adjusting the tripod. Use a level to make sure you're horizontal.

It also appears that lighting was significantly different between the two images. That's not going to help you compare sharpness.

[jim c]

One more image...Tokina taken @f8 1/200, The canon was taken @f9 1/200...These were taken a month apart...this was to compare sharpness...take it for what it is worth...my $.02 ( canon shot was later in the day (sunny), Tokina shot was slight overcast.

[jim c]

Here is an image ...the 1st one was taken at the bottom of the door...the 2nd was taken at the top of the window...You can see the distortion tilts left or right depending on whether you angled the camera up or down.... When I took the shot with the canon @ 10mm, the impact of tilting the camera is more severe due to the wider angle

[Tom W]

The sharpness comparison looks pretty comparable, but its really hard to tell. The different lighting tends to have different contrast, and contrast is a contributing factor to percieved sharpness. If you have both, I'd play around with them for a while under varying circumstances. You might find that one excels in certain conditions (bright day, flare, etc) while the other lens is better in other situations.

[jim c]

Tom...

I returned the canon a month ago...so I could only try to duplicate shots I took with the canon and still saved....I am pleased with the Tokina plus the range fits nicely with the Tamron 28-75.

[Tom W]

Tom...

I returned the canon a month ago...so I could only try to duplicate shots I took with the canon and still saved....I am pleased with the Tokina plus the range fits nicely with the Tamron 28-75.

Well, I think that the Tokina is going to serve you well, as is the well-liked Tamron. Enjoy the toys/tools of photography!

[drisley]

I've heard MANY good things of that Tokina. The only downside apparently is it's behaviour to flare.
The funny thing is that my Tokina, the 17mm, is probably the most flare resistant lens available.
The nice thing about the Tokina 12-24 is the price compared to the Canon.
And, I know one thing for sure, the Canon won't beat the Tokina in build quality. Tokina is one of the few companies that can build lenses that rival L quality, and in fact beat them when it comes to the manual focus ring.
Not to mention, Tokina was nice enough to include a free lens hood and a 3x longer warranty.

[WestFalcon]

I have the Tokina and really like it. It is the kind of lens that I don't use that often but when needed, it does a fantastic job. Ther are times when a person needs a really wide angle on a 1.6x crop and this does the job for $500. I tried a Canon in a store and shot with both and found the color and contrast very similar. I could easily live with either. I personally think Canon would sell more of these at $500 and still make a ton of profit. I think they are overcharging for a non-L lens. They can sell the 28-135IS for $400 and I can't believe they are telling us that it costs double to make this 10-22. For the money, the tokina is the better buy unless you need those extra 2 mm at the short end.